Hacker News Reader

Comment by thepasswordis | Hacker News Reader

There are too many people making making similar comments to reply to all of them, so I'm going to make a top level response to all of them.

The truckers are NOT protesting against the vaccine itself, and if you believe that they are, I would highly encourage you to find different sources for news.

The truckers are protesting the idea that the government can force them to take the vaccine against their will.

I would hope that people could find some more common ground on this, since there is an almost identical debate happening around the idea of bodily autonomy:

Almost nobody, or functionally/practically nobody, is "pro abortion". People who are "pro choice" are saying that they don't believe the government should be able to force women to carry a child until birth, because they believe it violates their right to bodily autonomy.

The truckers are saying the same thing. They aren't "anti vaccine", they are against the government forcing them to take a vaccine, because they believe it violates their right to bodily autonomy.

View on HN

Their stated demands are the dissolution of the current democratically elected government, they've conducted educational seminars about the dangers of vaccination full of outlandishly false information.

Anyone can believe anything they like but none are required to be so credulous as to believe that the protests are simply about vaccine mandates given the large quantity of published evidence that the organizers and participants have a bevy of other agendas they would like to promote.

This is Canada. Those powers are powers of the MPs. It is a justified action that happens numerous times in Canada, predominantly during minority governments, which is what Trudeau has.

> Their stated demands are the dissolution of the current democratically elected government

“Dissolution of the government” has innocuous meaning in a parliamentary system, where “the government” refers to the executive authority of the current party or coalition in power in parliament: https://sencanada.ca/en/sencaplus/how-why/what-is-dissolutio.... It’s about as dramatic as a recall election in certain American states. Maybe even less so because dissolution of the government technically happens after every Parliamentary election

You’re deliberately using unfamiliarity with the term to suggest the truckers are calling for overthrow of the governing institutions of the country—what Americans mean when they refer to “the government.”

I am not deliberately using unfamiliarity with the term to suggest the truckers are calling for overthrow of the governing institutions of the country - they are in fact calling for exactly that, they published an MOU that didn't call for the government to resign but rather called for the Governor General and the Senate to declare the parliament illegitimate.

I was being overly generous in my language by implying that they were just calling for the government to voluntarily resign when in fact they are asking for a non-constitutional coup. I was trying to err on the side of being too fair to their position.

I’ve had family members killed in an attempted coup. Coups involve people with guns. Asking existing government institutions to draw on their reserve powers is not a “coup.”

Both the Canadian Senate and the Governor General are, in principle, there to be a check on the House of Commons. Even if asking them to override the actions of the Trudeau government in this context isn’t legally viable, that doesn’t make it an attempt to “overthrow” the government.

In the US, our Supreme Court exercises sweeping powers to strike down acts of Congress based on perceived individual rights. That’s not an “overthrow” of the government.

I am sorry for your loss and I hope that you and your family received justice and resolution in the end.

I did not call this a coup and I respectfully do not regard the requests outlined as "drawing on reserve powers" in the regular Canadian constitutional order. The appointment of citizens committees to govern would clearly be an illegal act.

I am trying to engage in good faith to the best of my ability on this topic, that's all I can do.

You’re not engaging in good faith. You used the word “coup” in your post above to try and paint non-violent protesters seeking redress from their government as being akin to third world insurgents.

That seems to be the comparison you want to make, not me. Remember, I started with dissolution!

Yes, and then you used the word “coup.”

> I was being overly generous in my language by implying that they were just calling for the government to voluntarily resign when in fact they are asking for a non-constitutional coup.

People use words to invoke the associated connotations. When people accuse truckers of asking for a coup, they are deliberately drawing a comparison to this: https://www-gannett--cdn-com.cdn.ampproject.org/i/s/www.gann.... It’s an attempt to demonize and dehumanize political opposition. By drawing a comparison to armed insurgents, the point is to justify disproportionate government responses. This tactic is common in Bangladesh for that purpose. Sad to see it happening in North America.

You should read and listen to the statements of the leadership of the protest, they have in many instances called for a coup, they largely haven't threatened to do it themselves but they have called for it believing that the military will "side with them".

And again, I am being as generous as I can be, here is a supercut of Pat King again and again saying there needs to be violence to reach his political ends.

https://twitter.com/Peterlad21/status/1489600404681756672?t=...

It is what it is.

> Coups involve people with guns

So you've never heard the term "Bloodless Coup" ?

That’s when the people with the guns don’t have to actually shoot anyone: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Bangladesh_coup_d%27%C3%A...

Petitioning the existing organs of government, even with a shoddy legal theory, isn’t a coup, bloodless or otherwise.

Petitioning them loudly, by disruptive behaviour, to use extraordinary or theoretical powers to attempt to overturn democracy, kinda starts to look that way though. Much like the (pathetic, but still present) coup attempt in the US last year.

Their most prominently stated demand is ending all state-backed mandates and lockdowns. Where did you see anything about the dissolution of their elected government? Or, are you referring to the parliamentary system?

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/what-the-truckers-want-and-...

From the article:

A Memorandum of Understanding posted to the group’s website sets out a framework to effectively dissolve the federal government in favour of a “Citizens of Canada Committee” composed of the Senate, the Governor General and whoever else Canada Unity selects.

This committee of entirely unelected figures would then “instruct all levels of the Federal, Provincial, Territorial, and Municipal governments to immediately cease and desist all unconstitutional human rights, discriminatory and segregated actions.”

If enacted, the MOU would represent an unprecedented dissolution of the federal system and put an abrupt end to 155 years of continuous parliamentary rule (a record that happens to rank us as one of the world’s oldest democracies).

Can you back what you say with specific examples and how it represents the general consensus of the movement?

The main organizers published an MOU before arriving in the capital and that organizing group still represents the occupation in Ottawa as their defacto leadership and by all accounts appears to be in control of the allocation of resources.

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/what-the-truckers-want-and-...

Every protest movement encounters the problem of leadership and managing consensus but the core group is quite small that stays during the week, if they were not aligned with the self-appointed leadership it would be very clear to any outside observer.

There are public declarations of moderation but the Zello and Telegram channels operated by the leadership consistently offer assertions of positions consistent with the original MOU., culminating in efforts like this: https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/governor-generals-off...

> dissolution of the current democratically elected government

Basically means "a no-confidence vote"

I was very generous in my language here, they are actually asking for some extra-constitutional remedy involving "citizen committees" governing the country.

It would be much more reasonable for them to be simply demanding the normal resignation of the government and new elections, but we just had an election, so I presume they are well aware of the fact that the result would not be favourable to their goals.

I'm vaccinated, and I think almost everyone should take a vaccine. I don't sympathize with the protesters' beliefs, or even their methods. But, I am terrified by the glee that some people seem to express in the government using unlimited power to shut these protests down. I keep seeing variations of

- These aren't peaceful protests, they're an occupation by a fringe group

- You're allowed to protest, but not have an impact on the economy

- You're allowed to protest, but not block critical infrastructure

- An as of yet unattributed violent act was committed during the midst of the protests, therefore they are not peaceful protests, they are violent extremists

I sympathize with people living in Ottawa, it must be loud, frightening, and angering to be occupied by an unruly protest. I don't want to make a comparison to other protest movements of recent memory and how they were handled. Demonstrations are always unpleasant and inconvenient for bystanders, that's almost the entire point.

Do we want demonstrations contained by free speech zones as were so controversial during the 2000s? If we can freeze bank accounts of demonstrators participating in protests that are deemed illegal, what else can we do? Should the government force Apple and Google to lock people out of their phones because they are using them to coordinate illegal protests? Lock them out of email and social media? Ban businesses in general from serving them? I don't believe the government would go that far, but how far do we want them to go? Freezing bank accounts is too far for me.

Try to remember that the government rarely yields back powers we give them, but they do change hands. What we see here today will be used against movements you support. Maybe next year.

I think at some level most people know this, certainly Trudeau. But it's much easier to get what you want by pushing the narrative that these are racist, conspiracy theorists who think that vaccines have microchips or whatever other stuff gullible canadians actually believe people think.

In my province, we have to show our "vaccine pass" to go to the liquor store, the hardware store, I don't know what else, I dont go to stores anymore (I have all 3 vaccine shots). We have one of the highest vaccination rates in the world, and that has just emboldened "leaders" to push even tighter restrictions. The protests are about the horrible place our country has become, they have nothing to do with belief or disbelief in vaccines as a concept.

And I have to add, if there was ever a vaccine to disbelieve in, it is this one, I mean honestly, it "prevents severe infection" - sure, is that justification for state compelled vaccination?

> And I have to add, if there was ever a vaccine to disbelieve in, it is this one, I mean honestly, it "prevents severe infection" - sure, is that justification for state compelled vaccination?

Yes it is.

That's an interesting argument, I hadn't thought of it that way before.

God. Even more than this. "Why should people, who's profession is driving around transporting goods intercity and internationally, be required to get vaccinated?"

I wonder

I wonder what the reason could be.

Wow what a pickle.

Well I just can't figure this puzzle out.

At least some were flying confederate flags...

Well, in my province it's not a problem. There you prove point #1, this is not a federal issue. What province are you in? In my province leaders aren't pushing tighter restrictions.

It doesn't matter what your grievances are, you don't get to park your truck in the middle of the street and break the law. Not in this country. Whether they "right" or "wrong" doesn't even factor into this.

I think, and so has most of the population during this pandemic, that Canada did a great job balancing public health with the needs of individuals. Ofcourse this varies province to province but as a whole. Better than many other places.

There is no "state compelled vaccination". The right to cross the border while not being subject to any restriction is not a god given right. But you don't want to get vaccinated, great, don't drive your truck across the border. For most of the pandemic truckers were allowed freely across the border while others (like me) were not with no quarantine or vaccine requirements. As Delta rose to dominance the rules changed (the change happened Nov 18th, 2021!).

I wouldn't even rule out state compelled vaccinations for all under some scenarios.

The Confederate flag was carried by one person completely covered and anonymous. The flag was brand new, still creased from the packaging. Trudeau's personal photographer was photographed following this person while taking pictures. There's several videos of many people in the protest harassing this person until they are forced to leave.

"Anything bad was the government"

I would say this is a case of tell me who your friends are and I'll tell you who you are.

So yeah, the guys with the Nazi flags, the confederate flags, the US flags, they're all Trudeau's agents. Right.

Flying the Canadian flag in this sort of divisive protest is honestly evidence enough of who we're dealing with here. You don't get to appropriate the flag, you don't get to appropriate the term "freedom". If you stand with those guys then it's clear who you stand with. Criticism and healthy discussion is one thing, this is another. And I agree the health measures should be gradually removed and the pandemic is basically over.

" Shimon Koffler Fogel, CEO of the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA), issued the following statement:

"Twenty-four hours after International Holocaust Remembrance Day and on The National Day of Remembrance of the Québec City Mosque Attack and Action against Islamophobia, there are Nazi flags being flown in public, in Canada, on Parliament Hill. This should be horrifying to all Canadians."

https://www.cija.ca/nazi-flags-at-the-truckers-protest/

You are being fooled.

This argument is fallacious and also worded extremely disingenuously.

1) The "Common Denominator Fallacy" accepts both of an argument or position on the grounds that both sides share at least some common assumptions. In this case, you're attempting to draw common ground between the issues of bodily autonomy involved in abortion, and the protester's views of bodily autonomy w.r.t. vaccine mandates. This is incorrect; someone having an abortion or not fundamentally only affects that person; it does not cause someone else to get sick or die. Not being vaccinated, in some circumstances, does.

I don't support mandatory vaccination for all jobs (e.g. cutting down trees outside can be done just fine if you're not vaccinated), but part of living in a society is accepting certain restrictions on oneself to support the common good. The argument being made by the Canadian government is that vaccine mandates are such a restriction.

2) Nobody is "forcing" anyone to take a vaccine. People may choose to not be vaccinated, but if they make that choice, then they must live with the outcomes of that choice. In this case, truckers are perfectly capable of choosing not to be vaccinated, but the outcome of that choice is not being allowed to cross borders. Not "lose their job" - just live with certain restrictions on their behaviour as a result of their choice.

(Side note: owners of trucking companies may choose to terminate an employee for not being able to drive to the USA if that's a job requirement, but that's at the discretion of the company and is not mandated by the government. They could, for example, also choose to retask unvaccinated employees to drive routes that are not subject to mandates.)

This is simply not true.

The truckers are and have always been free to choose not to be vaccinated (or, as their leaders put it, be subject to medical experiments). By choosing not to take the vaccine they are shunned from participating in activities in which they would put the general public at greater risk of more severe forms of the disease. They have the freedom; what they want is to not suffer the consequences of exercising that freedom.

To emphasize their demands to not experience the consequences of their decisions they have driven thousands of miles to a larger city (population of Ottawa-Gatineau is about 1.5 million) and proceeded to reign anarchy and lawlessness on the innocent denizens of that location and call for inappropriate physical interactions with the prime minster who has no jurisdiction of provincial health matters but is hated and despised by this group not because of what he had said or done but just because of who he is.

Those brutes are just selfish and infantile. They have spent 3 weeks invading and partying in someone else's home. They have a right to protest without fear of government repercussions, but their actions overstepped the bounds of protest appropriate to their legitimate complaint long ago and has veered into lawlessness for the sake of lawlessness. They are no different than a grade-school bully trying to get everyone's lunch money in the playground.

What these mothertruckers should do is just say sorry and go home. It's time.

and here is the australian govt absolving themselves of any bad effects of the vaccine after having forced their citizens to take it.

These give even more ammunition to the skeptics.

https://nitter.net/ChickenGate/status/1492673621344632835#m

That's pretty standard for the current Australian government to absolving themselves of any responsibility whatsoever. That's kind of ~~what~~ all they do.

To live in a society we must agree to a social contract in which personal freedoms may be limited if that benefits society as a whole. That's why we pay taxes, have laws, and respect each other.

Here, it's important to understand that vaccines do much more than protect a singe trucker from getting sick. It makes the population more resistant to the disease and lowers the infection rate. Low infection rates keep people who really can't be vaccinated safer. And, perhaps most importantly, it lowers the chance of dangerous mutations from developing and being selected.

Truckers that refuse to vaccinate are making a choice that affects all of us. It's not up to them to allow the pandemic to continue forever.

With all of that said, I hope that it's also clear why we can't compare the decision to not get vaccinated with the choice of getting an abortion.

Abortion is not in any way comparable with this issue. Do not try and force some 'common ground' argument where is isn't one.

I kinda agree, though probably from a different prospective than you.

In the case of abortion, the right of the fetus to its life should be balanced with the bodily autonomy of the mother.

You can make a much stronger argument against mandatory Covid vaccination, since it is mostly about an adult making decisions about their own health.

Agreed. The anti-abortion argument claims that bodily autonomy should be violated because not doing so supposedly results in the direct death of a defenseless child.

The pro-vax mandate argument claims that bodily autonomy should be violated because it supposedly prevents a 0.05% chance of death of an innocent person. (usually adult)

:-) I just noticed that we posted almost the same thing, at almost the same time.

It seems to me both pro-choice advocates and Canadian truckers are saying, “Get your laws off my body.” The idea that a person belongs to herself or himself is fundamental to both arguments.

Someones choice to get an abortion doesn't give someone a potentially fatal disease.

Someones choice to not get vaccinated HAS led to significant deaths at this point. Via overloaded health systems, spreading the disease and of course, the much higher likelihood of death for those who are unvaccinated.

Drawing a parallel to abortion is absurd.

I think pro-life supporters would argue that abortion leads to the death of the unborn child, who they believe has a right to be born. Is a woman required to carry an unwanted child to term because the fetus has rights? Is a Canadian trucker required to receive an unwanted vaccine to protect the old and vulnerable? Personally, I see a lot of similarities in the ambiguity of where the boundary exists between the rights and responsibilities between two parties relative to each other.

The stakes are clearly different. Pregnancy doesn't endanger others. There's very good arguments for mandating vaccines against infectious diseases. I think debating mandated vaccinations with regards to the realistic likelihood of eradicating a disease is a debate that can be had, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. The common good must be weighed against individual liberty. Even here in America, the land of the free, we do it all the time. There are countless things I can not do because it would not be in the best interest of society as a whole. In all Western societies, and many others as well, individual liberties are commonly curtailed for the common good.

I, for one, am honored to give up some liberties so that I may help others.

Fundamental rights are legal absolutes that can only be negated by other rights or the a threat to the existence of the state itself that is supposed to defend these rights (e.g. war).

The problem is, there are no rights to be healthy and not to catch a respiratory disease and the virus doesn't threaten the existence of the state with a 0.05% mortality rate in old and sick people.

> I, for one, am honored to give up some liberties so that I may help others.

I'm not sure to decide if you're a troll or not.

>The stakes are clearly different. Pregnancy doesn't endanger others.

What about sodomy? Receptive anal intercourse is an order of magnitude more likely to spread HIV/AIDS[1] than vaginal intercourse. Maybe what happens in the bedroom should be "curtailed for the common good"?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV/AIDS#Transmission

I think what the parent comment is suggesting is pregnancy (and sodomy) overwhelmingly impact the people directly involved with it. It's extremely unlikely (though still possible, technically) that one person sodomizing another will transmit HIV to a third, unrelated party.

I think it's a bit like second hand smoke vs. first hand smoke. I think it's entirely reasonable to object to second hand smoke (refusing vaccinations while insisting on participating in society) in all forms while supporting an individual's right to first hand smoke (pregnancy/sodomy).

>It's extremely unlikely (though still possible, technically) that one person sodomizing another will transmit HIV to a third, unrelated party.

Consider the prevalence of casual hookups, and how long the incubation period is, I say the chance is pretty high. If anything, the aids epidemic is evidence that it can spread despite requiring intimate contact. That said, for the purposes of this argument I'd be okay with limiting the argument to "ban sodomy for non-married couples" to rule out the "third, unrelated party" element.

When people start contracting HIV from being in the same room as people with it, then maybe we can have that discussion.

Also, just use a condom.

The differences very much matter.

You being pregnant does not increase the risk of my pregnancy.

Oh, they very much don't want laws on their own body, but they very much want their laws on everyone else's, if you ask them how they feel about:

* government control over media (especially which is non-christian, relating to LGTBQ subjects/characters, covering the history of racial discrimination, etc)

* freedom to humanely end one's own life out of a conscious, informed decision to do so

* the right to wear as little or as much clothing as you want, including covering your head entirely

* a woman having easy, unrestricted access to contraceptives and abortion

* immigration policies (the right to travel freely in search of a better life)

* the death penalty

* how freely you should be able to end another person's life (ie very loose carry and self defense laws)

* easy, accommodating access to voting

Yes, and where there's risk, there needs to be informed consent. Manipulation of trial data, collusion to censor, deplatforming and controlled media clearly limit informed consent.

Abortion is far more serious. Abortion always directly ends a human life. Not getting vaccinated creates at most an indirect increase in the probability of other people getting sick and dying—probably a minuscule fraction of one life. Many decisions we make every day have similar statistical effects—taking an international flight which kills people through pollution, or buying products the production of which creates heavy metal poisoning in third world countries.

What is the incremental increase in covid deaths attributable to one person choosing not to get vaccinated, accounting for the fact that vaccination decreases but doesn’t eliminate the chances of passing on covid? What’s that compared to the incremental deaths caused by other activities?

Doesn't that analysis depend a whole lot on a very complicated metaphysical question of when a "human life" begins? The moment of conception? That's a fringe belief and the only answer to the question that makes your argument cohere perfectly.

I think it’s a purely scientific question with a simple answer. After conception, the organism is plainly alive. Like if we found it on Mars we would say we found life on Mars. It’s also human according to its genetics—which is generally how we decide what species something happens to be.

I don’t know why you’d call that a “fringe belief.” Fully 38% of the public holds that view: https://www.wbur.org/npr/730183531/poll-majority-want-to-kee....

I suspect when most people assert that “life doesn’t begin at conception” they’re not referring to the literal beginning of human life, but the metaphysical question of when “human life that justifies legal protection” begins. That I agree is complex.

Science cannot provide definitions, like of what consititutes life.

So when scientists talk about evidence of life on Mars, or the possibility of life on other planets, they don’t have a scientific definition for that?

Definitions are just assumptions and can differ for each paper. They come from convention or philosophy, not science itself.

“Definitions are just assumptions” is pretty tautologically false.

Science at its core aims to define things: hypotheses are proposed and proven/disproven in search of pinning down clearly defined rules and patterns.

Is gravity just an assumption that differs for each of us?

Gravity as you mean it isn't a definition, it's a theory.

If you named it vticarg instead and defined the word "gravity" as loud noises, that would be fine scientifically.

Indeed you will find "gravity" defined different ways in different papers. Sometimes it's Newtonian, sometimes relativity, sometimes MOND.

You pounced on their use of the word "life", but of course the question here is "human life", not "life" in general, and that's a term that does not simply mean live human cells, and does not have a straightforward scientific definition the way "life" does (at least, not when used in the sense it's used in the abortion debate).

But life doesn't have a straightforward definion either.

Are viruses alive? What about robots? Or cities? Or earth?

It's a philosophical question and not something that can be decided by experiment.

Well then the truckers are idiots, because nobody is forcing them to get the vaccine. They must if they want to cross the border. So just don't cross the border and step aside for someone else who will.

> I would highly encourage you to find different sources for news.

I’d be curious to know the type of apolitical source of news you consume, considering the flat out incorrect claims in your post.

Which claims are flat out incorrect?

Bodily autonomy is important but everybody dies and worms crawl through their bones and then whether they took to the stupid vaccine or not or wore the stupid mask or not does not matter. They can't resist the worms.

The worst effect of the covid pandemic has been whipping up opposing mass hysterias.

Both sides are wrong. Take the shot or don't if you want to. Suffer or enjoy the consequences of your decision. Nothing in life is justified now. Nothing in life was justified ever. Nothing in life needs to be justified.

The whole universe doesn't even need to exist. Instead there could just be nothing. But we worry about our stupid vaccine fears and mask fears while the feral human is increasingly domesticated into docile livestock.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com